£500 fine + £100 costs and 6 points......

noodles71

Nearly a year ago now I was cycling through the Lewisham roundabout (yes that one at the train/bus station) from the New Cross end and heading over and down past the police station towards Hither Green. I had a muppet coming down the hill from Greenwich/Tescos in a small van that looked at me and decided that I couldn't cause him much damage so he continued out onto the roundabout, into my path where I smashed into the side of the van rendering my front wheel irrepairable. He then gave me an earful of abuse and drove off without swapping details leaving my crippled bike in the middle of the roundabout Before I get flamed, I was already on the brakes but sometimes sh!t still happens, especially when the driver can see you but decides to put you in danger anyway and the road is wet.

I made a complaint to the police that seemed to go nowhere. Got the usual messing about from them like I read here about time/effort/resources/serious injury etc... and just assumed nothing would be done. I was just more interested in them forcing the guy to hand over his details so I could chase his insurance company for the cost of replacing the front wheel. With no communication from either I figured the police had just given up.

I get home this week and open a letter from the police thanking me for helping them bringing the guy to justice and that he has been fined £500 + £100 costs and 6 points for failing to name the driver at xx date at xx court. Not quite the result I was after but I am now in two minds....

He did appear to be the type that would wear an ASBO with pride so if I were to pursue this further I am pretty sure that my address would have to become known to him? Is it worth the risk of him coming around to clean my front windows with rocks (or worse) for the sake of £140 worth of wheel? Don't get me wrong, £140 is not insignificant to me but starting off a "Neighbour from Hell" situation is to be best avoided. Has anyone ever taken the next step with civil action once the police have had their pound of flesh from the other party? I still have the receipt & damaged wheel and now the court judgement against him. Not that the judgement directly found him guilty of driving like a prat but it does show that he didn't feel like he was in the position to defend himself. By not disclosing any details and being found guilty of failing to name the driver I still have no idea who to chase. Anyone been in a similar situation and taken it further?

HamishD

It's a lot of chasing and hassle for £140. Wouldn't pursue it myself on the time = money angle.. . .

I wouldn't worry about the ASBO/harrassment bit.

Good luck if you do start proceedings though!

HamishD

PS I do that roundabout every evening and wonder when I'll be the one taken out !

dilemna

The police should give you his insurance details or insurance that was in force on that vehicle at the time it hit you on that day. No need to contact the driver directly or give him your details. You are entitled to these details under the Road Traffic Act. You may well have to make a formal written request to the police who still might refuse to give them to you unless you PAY them a fee. You then send the insurer the receipts for the repairs/replacements to your bike. You then get re-imbursed. If they muck you around or refuse to pay you then say that your neck and back are hurting .................

If you get the impression the driver was NOT insured then you make a complaint to the police and IPCC as to why the guy has not been prosecuted for driving WITHOUT insurance. If this was the case then you make a claim to the MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau) instead.

sketchley

To be honest with you he's unlikely to do anything if you went via your insurance as if anything happens to you it would go straight back to him and result in harassment charges etc. You would be claiming of his insurance, if he has any, or the Motor Insurance Bureau if not. It would only cost him on renewal. Don't let the scum bag get away with it, I did this once when a scum bag I knew smashed in to my car as a teenager and regretted it to this day, next time he may kill someone

Phone one of the no win no claim cycle lawyer and see what they say about it.

nich

If he ends up doing the same thing again and gets caught, that's another 6 points which is a ban right? I hope it will be playing on his mind and he'll become a better driver.

Stu07

If you get the impression the driver was NOT insured then you make a complaint to the police and IPCC as to why the guy has not been prosecuted for driving WITHOUT insurance

dilemna - it doesnt work like that. It kinda works on 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and not on 'if you get the impression.'

The whole reason for prosecuting for failing to provide details and the registered keeper getting the whacking fine and points is that the RK/driver cannot be dealt with for any other underlying offences, eg no ins, no MOT, excess speed, due care etc.

Noodles71 - I would check the MIB website and see what advice they give and then take it from there.

Good luck

cloggsy

Contact the Police, thanking them for their letter and asking them for his details (or his insurers details.) He will have surely had to produce his details at a Police station to prove his vehicle was Taxed, MOT'd and insured?

Were the Police aware that your bike wheel got totalled in the accident?

spen666

dilemna wrote:

The police should give you his insurance details or insurance that was in force on that vehicle at the time it hit you on that day. No need to contact the driver directly or give him your details. You are entitled to these details under the Road Traffic Act. You may well have to make a formal written request to the police who still might refuse to give them to you unless you PAY them a fee. You then send the insurer the receipts for the repairs/replacements to your bike. You then get re-imbursed. If they muck you around or refuse to pay you then say that your neck and back are hurting .................

If you get the impression the driver was NOT insured then you make a complaint to the police and IPCC as to why the guy has not been prosecuted for driving WITHOUT insurance. If this was the case then you make a claim to the MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau) instead.

Think you have failed to read all the op

The person was fined, not for driving, but as the registered keeper for failing to reveal the name of the driver.

Thus the identity of the driver is not known to the police

jimmypippa

spen666 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

The police should give you his insurance details or insurance that was in force on that vehicle at the time it hit you on that day. No need to contact the driver directly or give him your details. You are entitled to these details under the Road Traffic Act. You may well have to make a formal written request to the police who still might refuse to give them to you unless you PAY them a fee. You then send the insurer the receipts for the repairs/replacements to your bike. You then get re-imbursed. If they muck you around or refuse to pay you then say that your neck and back are hurting .................

If you get the impression the driver was NOT insured then you make a complaint to the police and IPCC as to why the guy has not been prosecuted for driving WITHOUT insurance. If this was the case then you make a claim to the MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau) instead.

Think you have failed to read all the op

The person was fined, not for driving, but as the registered keeper for failing to reveal the name of the driver.

Thus the identity of the driver is not known to the police

In such a situation, if the owner of the vehicle refuses to disclose the driver, what does that do as far as claiming costs back?

Assuming the vehicle is insured, would an insurance company have to say that they don't know whether the car was driven by the named driver? Who would actually be responsible for any costs - the registered owner?

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

The police should give you his insurance details or insurance that was in force on that vehicle at the time it hit you on that day. No need to contact the driver directly or give him your details. You are entitled to these details under the Road Traffic Act. You may well have to make a formal written request to the police who still might refuse to give them to you unless you PAY them a fee. You then send the insurer the receipts for the repairs/replacements to your bike. You then get re-imbursed. If they muck you around or refuse to pay you then say that your neck and back are hurting .................

If you get the impression the driver was NOT insured then you make a complaint to the police and IPCC as to why the guy has not been prosecuted for driving WITHOUT insurance. If this was the case then you make a claim to the MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau) instead.

Think you have failed to read all the op

The person was fined, not for driving, but as the registered keeper for failing to reveal the name of the driver.

Thus the identity of the driver is not known to the police

Spen dearest the point I am trying to get across is was the vehicle insured? If so then claim on the insurance that was in force. The cops are able to find out from DVLA the registered keeper and from the MIB whether the vehicle was insured for the registered keeper or anyone else to drive. The fact that the driver has refused to co-operate with the police and provide the name of the person who was driving is the reason for his prosecution, fine and 6 points - am I right? His refusal to give the driver's name or admit that HE was driving at the time suggests that the vehicle was UNINSURED, because if it was insured and some one else was driving why on earth refuse to offer this information and be fined and prosecuted yourself. It doesn't add up. The driver was driving without insurance which means the poor cyclist will have to approach the MIB for re-imbursement of his losses or find out where he lives, decide whether he has any assets and sue him personally.

dilemna

Stu07 wrote:

If you get the impression the driver was NOT insured then you make a complaint to the police and IPCC as to why the guy has not been prosecuted for driving WITHOUT insurance

dilemna - it doesnt work like that. It kinda works on 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and not on 'if you get the impression.'

The whole reason for prosecuting for failing to provide details and the registered keeper getting the whacking fine and points is that the RK/driver cannot be dealt with for any other underlying offences, eg no ins, no MOT, excess speed, due care etc.

Noodles71 - I would check the MIB website and see what advice they give and then take it from there.

Good luck

Ehh?? You are confused. It has nothing to do with the standard or burden of proof. Driving without insurance is a Strict Liability Offence ie no mens rea (guilty mind) required just actus rea. You either had insurance or you didn't.

nation

If the vehicle is insured you can claim against the insurance covering it in most cases, whether the driver can be identified or not.

The law is structured such that insurance covering a specific vehicle is covered for third party liability regardless of who the driver is or whether they've adhered to the policy restrictions.

The idea is that an innocent party isn't punished because some scrote doesn't declare the mods to their Saxo, or a person lends their car to a mate.

cee

raises an interesting question.....

maybe spen can shed some light......

in a case like this...where the registered keeper does not reveal the driver at the time.....where do injured parties claim? I would have thought that it is a bit more like the untraced driver scheme through the MIB........

What is the dealeo?

The Rookie

dilemna wrote:

Spen dearest the point I am trying to get across is was the vehicle insured? .

Dilemna dearest, the point is you can't insure a vehcile, a driver is insured to drive a (or more) cars, as there is no 'driver' then a claim cannot be made against him (or any insurer he may have had).

In some civil cases the owner has been deemed to be liable unless they state otherwise, but its by no means a certainty.

This has long been used as a get out against claims or more serious offences, just fail to name the driver and that is the offence (cntrary to S172 of the RTA 1988) that you get punished for.

Simon

nation

You claim off the MIB if there is no insurance covering the vehicle. If the vehicle is insured, most of the time it doesn't matter who was driving it, the insurer has an obligation under the road traffic act to deal with third party claims.

The majority of insurance policies in the UK cover specific vehicles, not drivers, for the purposes of third party liability. The exceptions are things like Chauffeur or Motor trade policies, that cover a specific driver or class of drivers (like "any employee of company X") to drive any vehicle.

The problem in this case is actually most likely to be demonstrating to the satisfaction of the insurer that the vehicle was involved in the accident. The police prosecuting the registered owner and keeper for not disclosing who was driving it at a specific time doesn't necessarily demonstrate that.

The Rookie

nation wrote:

You claim off the MIB if there is no insurance covering the vehicle. .

No you claim from the driver and the MIB step in to sartsify your losses, as noodles doesn't know the driver or if they were insured, then the MIB won't come into it.

Simon

dilemna

nation wrote:

If the vehicle is insured you can claim against the insurance covering it in most cases, whether the driver can be identified or not.

The law is structured such that insurance covering a specific vehicle is covered for third party liability regardless of who the driver is or whether they've adhered to the policy restrictions.

The idea is that an innocent party isn't punished because some scrote doesn't declare the mods to their Saxo, or a person lends their car to a mate.

+1 I think this may be the case and also what I was trying to pursue for the OP.

The other thing I believe it is a criminal offence to let some one drive a vehicle you own and are the registrered keeper knowing that the person does not have insurance or the onus might be to make sufficient enquiry as to whether some one has insurance on a vehicle. Failure to do so is an offence I believe. Spen666? Anyway AFAIK all vehicles if being used on the public road have to be insured. On the facts presented here I suspect it wasn't hence the drvier's large fine and 6 points for not providing the driver's name.

OP - contact MID to see what if any policies were in place. Presumably the police did this already? If it turns out the driver is insured claim from his insurers; if not, then submit a claim to the Motor Insurance Bureau. Good luck.

dilemna

The Beginner wrote:

nation wrote:

You claim off the MIB if there is no insurance covering the vehicle. .

No you claim from the driver and the MIB step in to sartsify your losses, as noodles doesn't know the driver or if they were insured, then the MIB won't come into it.

Simon

No this is rubbish. This is what used to happen donkeys years ago when there was no MIB scheme. If you were third party and were hit by another driver who was not insured then more than likely it was impossible to trace the driver and if you did, he or she refused to pay up or threatened you with violence which tended to make people think twice about pursuing the matter. If you were to pursue some one personally for your losses and got judgement in your favour then you have the whole problem of enforcing judgement to get your money if they still decline to pay up which can be expensive.

You make your claim to the MIB which is a scheme for parties injured on the roads who have no recourse to claiming from an insurer if the other party is uninsured or hit and runner, etc.,

Headhuunter

Haven't read all the responses but this guy sounds like an utter w@nker. I would get in touch with a no win no fee lawyer and take his insurance company to the cleaners... Forget £140, I got about £6k after my crash when an idiot in a Ford Orion decided to pull out in front of me.... The guy wasn't particularly nasty but wouldn't even pay for my written off bike, he offered me £200 for a bike which was worth £550ish at which point I said, lets go through your insurer then... Your guy sounds like he needs teaching a lesson... Try RJW lawyers....

The Rookie

dilemna wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

nation wrote:

You claim off the MIB if there is no insurance covering the vehicle. .

No you claim from the driver and the MIB step in to sartsify your losses, as noodles doesn't know the driver or if they were insured, then the MIB won't come into it.

Simon

No this is rubbish. This is what used to happen donkeys years ago when there was no MIB scheme.

So when teh was no MIB you sued the driver and the MIB stepped in - and you say I'm talking rubbish - want to try again?

To repeat A CAR IS NOT INSURED a person is insured to drive a car (and that liability continues when its left at rest) a car cannot be insured against third party losses on it's own.

Simon

nation

The Beginner wrote:

To repeat A CAR IS NOT INSURED a person is insured to drive a car (and that liability continues when its left at rest) a car cannot be insured against third party losses on it's own.

In most cases it is the vehicle that is insured for the purposes of third party liability. Only certain specialist policies identify a driver and don't specify a vehicle. This is why the MID relates vehicle registrations to insurance policy numbers and not drivers. For example: if you own a car, take out an insurance policy on it, then that insurer is responsible for meeting any third party claim for damage caused by it regardless of who is driving it. If the driver isn't permitted under the policy terms and conditions, then the policyholder won't be able to claim for their own damage, and the insurer may very well take them to court to reclaim any third party damages the RTA obliged them to pay.

It's also why a vehicle can be seized if there is no insurance in force covering it (and there is no SORN).

At the moment the insurance company I work for is having tremendous difficulty getting this message across to motor traders that are lackadaisical about updating the MID when they take possession of vehicles, because the Police have just been given all sorts of interesting new powers to issue penalties and seize vehicles, and the extent to which they investigate on traffic stops is usually to assume that if the vehicle has no policy against it on the MID then it's uninsured.

Clever Pun

HamishD wrote:

PS I do that roundabout every evening and wonder when I'll be the one taken out !

I give everyone a stare down and hope for the best

dilemna

nation wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

To repeat A CAR IS NOT INSURED a person is insured to drive a car (and that liability continues when its left at rest) a car cannot be insured against third party losses on it's own.

In most cases it is the vehicle that is insured for the purposes of third party liability. Only certain specialist policies identify a driver and don't specify a vehicle. This is why the MID relates vehicle registrations to insurance policy numbers and not drivers. For example: if you own a car, take out an insurance policy on it, then that insurer is responsible for meeting any third party claim for damage caused by it regardless of who is driving it. If the driver isn't permitted under the policy terms and conditions, then the policyholder won't be able to claim for their own damage, and the insurer may very well take them to court to reclaim any third party damages the RTA obliged them to pay.

It's also why a vehicle can be seized if there is no insurance in force covering it (and there is no SORN).

At the moment the insurance company I work for is having tremendous difficulty getting this message across to motor traders that are lackadaisical about updating the MID when they take possession of vehicles, because the Police have just been given all sorts of interesting new powers to issue penalties and seize vehicles, and the extent to which they investigate on traffic stops is usually to assume that if the vehicle has no policy against it on the MID then it's uninsured.

Pretty much spot on.

dilemna

The Beginner wrote:

dilemna wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

nation wrote:

You claim off the MIB if there is no insurance covering the vehicle. .

No you claim from the driver and the MIB step in to sartsify your losses, as noodles doesn't know the driver or if they were insured, then the MIB won't come into it.

Simon

No this is rubbish. This is what used to happen donkeys years ago when there was no MIB scheme.

So when teh was no MIB you sued the driver and the MIB stepped in - and you say I'm talking rubbish - want to try again?

To repeat A CAR IS NOT INSURED a person is insured to drive a car (and that liability continues when its left at rest) a car cannot be insured against third party losses on it's own.

Simon

Errr ...... yes it can by virtue of the owner taking insurance out on it. Ever heard of Third Party insurance which is the minimum amount of cover required under the RTA? The owner/driver won't be covered for any losses or injury they incur but a third party will. Third parties are still covered if driven by some one other than the insured eg passengers and other parties the driver happens to injure, crash into or run over.

So it is a good idea for the OP to find out IF the vehicle was insured. If not then MIB.

bails87

So if I steal a car and crash it into something, the insurance of the car theft victim will have to pay to the owners of the thing I crash into?

nation

bails87 wrote:

So if I steal a car and crash it into something, the insurance of the car theft victim will have to pay to the owners of the thing I crash into?

Only if you have been identified as the driver of the vehicle. In practice this means if you were apprehended in the vehicle, or arrested subsequently and successfully prosecuted. The insurance company will then come gunning to obtain a judgement against you in the civil courts so they can seize your assets (assuming you can't or won't pay - strangely enough car thieves tend not to be too willing to cough up to compensate their victims).

If there is insurance covering the vehicle, but that insurer is able to demonstrate that the driver did not have the consent of the person responsible for it (i.e. it was stolen), that is when the MIB untraced drivers agreement kicks in. they do actually have to report it stolen, though, with all the dealing with the Police that entails. The Police also tend to take an extremely dim view of reports to the effect that "the vehicle was stolen at the time but I didn't report it and it has since turned up again with no damage and the keys still in it", which believe it or not plenty of people try.

The other mechanism by which you can claim through the MIB is the uninsured drivers agreement, which applies if there is no insurance in force covering the driver or the vehicle, or the driver is unknown and the vehicle is uninsured.

redvee

nich wrote:

If he ends up doing the same thing again and gets caught, that's another 6 points which is a ban right? I hope it will be playing on his mind and he'll become a better driver.

No, you can get 30 points and still not be banned

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dship.html